Can anyone settle an argument??

Chrissiew

My friends flat mate is getting done for benefit fraud, she told the DWP she was a single mother but is not only living with her boyfriend but also working evenings in a bar, 6 nights a week.

She had her benefit money paid into my friends bank account, the reason being she couldnt get her own account due to a bad credit record, although I said she could have got a basic account which doesnt rely on credit scoring.

I told my friend she could get done for being an accessory, due to the fact she knew her flat mate was working and couldnt say she didnt know her boyfriend was living with her because they share the same flat, and she knew she was claiming benefits and cant deny that because when they go into the bank it says IS and child tax credits, so she cant say she didnt know where the money was from, she would also have to withdraw the money and give it to her flat mate.

She says she wont get done at all, and she will just tell them that all she did was give the money to the girl and that was that. Am I right or is she right, does anyone know?

Soapn

hopefully she will get done, she's been aiding and abetting a criminal after all

JuneBow

Personally, I cannot see how she could get done for benefit fraud because she has not made a claim. However, she could be prosecuted for money laundering (receiving the proceeds of a crime) This can carry a far greater penalty. Rather like someone who receives money from a drug dealer. They would not be prosecuted for drug dealing, rather money laundering.

Chrissiew

I didnt think she would get done for benefit fraud but as an accessory because she knew it was going on and actually helping by the fact she allowed the money to be paid into her account, money laundering, wow didnt realise it would be that serious, well I guess once I tell her she is gonna be s****ing herself

epitome

IMHO in order to get done for money laundering it would have to be an absolute offence I don't know if it is absolute or not.

An absolute offence is one where there is no defence of "I did not know" i.e. intent does not have to be proved. If the act is proved then the person is guilty.

So *if* this qualifies as money laundering AND *if* money laundering is absolute or strict liability then she would be found guilty

If it is not strict liability/absolute then I don't see how a guilty verdict could be obtained, she could easily plead ignorance of the benefit system unless she herself is also on Income Support? and then it could be argued that she should have known the rules for IS.

JuneBow

epitome wrote: »

IMHO in order to get done for money laundering it would have to be an absolute offence I don't know if it is absolute or not.

.

I have never come across this term, but I do know that tax evasion is a criminal offence. My own professional regulations require me to check the identity of sources of funds paid to me, this includes sources of funds in order to settle my bills. If I suspect that any money I receive therefore is from tax evasion, the offence I would be guilty of is money laundering. I have looked at my professional regulations and I cannot see any reference to an absolute offence, so I am assuming that tax evasion, which my regulations concentrate on is not an absolute offence.
As benefit rules and tax evasion rules have many similarities, then I would imagine that similar penalties exist.
When I worked with retirement pensions/AA/supp ben many many years ago I never came across anyone convicted other than the claimant. This included people who said they were caring for someone who had fraudulently claimed AA.
Hopefully someone who actually knows the answer to this will come along and put us out of our misery.